However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price normally even if the victim completes the design drawings by the bad credit holder at the time.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) received six copies of the design drawings equivalent to KRW 2,400,000 at the market price by the Defendant’s e-mail from the victim, on January 2012; and (c) from that time until March 2012, the Defendant obtained ten copies of the design drawings equivalent to KRW 4,00,000 in total, from March 20, 200, and did not pay KRW 1,000,000 among them, and did not pay KRW 3,00,000,000.

2. The following facts or circumstances revealed by the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court, namely, (1) the victim traded at the request of the Defendant to produce 3-4 design drawings even prior to the instant transaction; (2) the Defendant and the victim, without prior agreement, did not arrange for the design cost or the period; and (3) if the Defendant and the victim explain the part to be modified in the sampling to be produced by the victim, the victim would first design the sample; (2) after consultation between the Defendant and the victim, the design drawings were modified; (3) the Defendant made the main product to produce the product by sending the design drawings to the main product producer; and (3) the Defendant and the victim would also produce the product with the main product; (3) the design drawings were corrected if the design drawings were to be modified in the course of the instant product production; and (3) the Defendant and the victim settled the price for the design drawings upon completion of the design drawings through the aforementioned revised work.